Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fauzty/sandbox

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. The user has been blocked. The material appears to be disruptive. Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Fauzty/sandbox

 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 07:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 07:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 07:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 07:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

It is purely non-English content that was used for disputes within the Chinese Wikipedia. It shall actually not be put in the enwiki. 1233 Talk 14:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

*Weak Keep - It's a sandbox, and it hasn't been submitted to AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep probably. I'm not aware of any rule that says sandboxes on the English Wikipedia that are used for the purposes of improving Wikipedia are not allowed if they are being used to improve a different language Wikipedia. Aside from the general sense that it's in the spirit of a sandbox, it's not infrequent to see people copy material from other language Wikipedias with the intention of translating it (proper attribution should be added if that's the case, of course). If it's here because it was deleted or otherwise deemed inappropriate on another project, it should be deleted, but otherwise I don't see a problem. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: the non-English content here, is an essay describing the third wave of democracy and the most popular constitutional system (in this wave and following wave of democracy) is semi-presidential system. France and Russia both got adapted to semi-presidential system, as well as many new democracies after the reunification of Germany. I don't see why such an essay (although written in non-English) with a lot of academic papers (also those papers written in non-English) would be any inconvenient to anyone. In the essay, I stated, "both France and Russia don't have one single election day", unlike the United States, because in France, they elect the president in one day, and elect the National Assembly in another day. Therefore, there are two election days in France, there are also two election days in Russia. I personally don't see why "the two election days" (so-called "nonconcurrent election") would be an issue to some, would you mind explain this to me? Basically both France and Russia are doing this. Thanks.--Fauzty (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 附記：這裡的非英文內容，是一篇描述的散文. 文中陳述了（在第三波及之後幾波的民主化當中）最流行的憲政體制，即為. 法國以及俄國都十分熟悉這種半總統制，而之後的許多新興民主政體也是此種制度. 我看不出來一篇散文（雖然並非以英文寫成），附上了這麼多學術論文（這些論文並非以英文寫成）會對誰造成什麼樣的不方便. 在這文章中，我陳述了，「法國以及俄國兩國都沒有單一的選舉日」，這兩國並不像美國，在法國有兩個選舉日，法國人們用一天選舉總統，在另一天選舉國民議會. 因此，法國的選舉日並不是同一天，而是兩天. 同樣的，俄國的選舉日也是兩天. 我個人並不覺得這種「兩個不同的選舉日」（所謂的「非同時選舉」）會有什麼爭議. 因為，法國和俄國他們兩個基本上都是這麼做的. 為什麼這個制度對誰會認定為有何爭議，如承蒙不棄，敬請詳細解說給我聽？感激不盡！--Fauzty (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note 2: the non-English reply above is just a translation to "the non-English content here, is an essay describing the third wave of democracy and the most popular....", so basically if someone want me to translate THAT into English, I'll obviously translate THAT into something like "the non-English content here, is an essay describing the third wave of democracy and the most popular....", which I already, well, provided.--Fauzty (talk)
 * Fauzty,you NPA anyone,not AGF anyone,POINT is the real reason to indef you in zh.wiki!-- MCC214 # Talk with me  06:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you mind elaborating it a bit?--Fauzty (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Fauzty/sandbox,User:Fauzty/sandbox,User:Fauzty/sandbox/03,User:MCC214/Fauzty_%26_MCC214_Talk_page.-- MCC214  Talk with me #Contributions with me 06:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: the non-English reply is mean admin NPA and not AGF Fauzty,some user is VAND.-- MCC214  Talk with me #Contributions with me 06:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1233,can you translation some non-English reply to User:Fauzty/sandbox,User:Fauzty/sandbox/02,User:Fauzty/sandbox/03?-- MCC214  Talk with me #Contributions with me 06:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - It does seem to detail some sort of dispute at times. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - The question here is whether to delete the sandbox of User:Fauzty. Some of us have argued to Keep it.  However, Fauzty isn't helping their own case by inserting non-English non-Roman text.  This breach of talk page etiquette should not affect the decision being made at this MFD, but it does reflect adversely on Fauzty.  I tried to collapse the non-English text, and was reverted, and won't do it again, but will caution that restoring it was a breach of talk page guidelines.  We don't need non-English text in this MFD.  Are you really trying to confuse us?  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They translated their comment into whatever language that is. Not necessarily a problem, especially due to the page in question being in that lanaguage. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Collapsing, however, seems like a good idea. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Seems good to me.--Fauzty (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have pointed the deletion discussions for sandboxes 2 and 3 here also.
 * User:Fauzly - Please do not complicate things by posting any more non-English to this deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Question - Where if anywhere is there a policy or guideline that says that non-English sandboxes may not be used for purposes for a non-English Wikipedia? If you can show the policy or guideline, I will support deletion.  As it is, it's a sandbox.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "However, in your own personal sandbox, you still shouldn't post nonfree copyrighted material or personal attacks/harassment, or writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. The addition of promotional material is not acceptable either; use Template:Db-spam to deal with such cases. In your own personal sandbox, you are most likely not going to get into edit conflicts since you are most likely the only user editing it." I think the content within isn't closely related to Wikipedia's goals. At the same time, I am neutral towards the deletion of the sandbox, however, with common sense, I do think that non-enwp materials used for non-enwp should be removed.-- 1233 Talk 10:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Reaching out to WikiProject China and WikiProject China/Translation to hopefully gain some insight.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 07:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The language of this sandbox is a red herring in my opinion. To me this looks more closer to WP:NPASAND; the sandbox page was created after was indefinitely blocked on Chinese Wikipedia, and was quickly filled up with a series of "evidence" of misconduct against various editors/administrators there; whether or not they are substantiated is irrelevant, as it doesn't appear that these compiled evidences were used in any block appeal discussions by Fauzty around the time. If the sandbox is being used for an imminent appeal, I think it will be fine to keep it; as it is not, our common practice is to delete them after time has passed. Alex Shih (Public) (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, the sandbox (and the text in the sandbox) was created January 2018, before the so-called "inderfinitely-blocked", not what you described as "AFTER THE BLOCK". Second, January 2018 was seven months ago. What you describe as "was QUICKLY filled up..." was, at most, not as "quickly" as we say the word "quickly." Do you mean seven months is a "quickly" to you? Or do you just get it wrong. What do you mean by saying "quickly filled up with..."? Did your accusation ever happen? Please explain. Since we are in August 2018 now, what do you mean by describing January 2018 as "quickly"? Quickly of ... WHAT? Your description of the status of the sandbox seems very far from what it is. For the most part, what you said in this paragraph is contrary to the fact. --Fauzty (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Most importantly, where is the part of the sandbox text do you consider offending the principle of WP:NPASAND? Would you mind point it out? Where is a personal attack to whom, do you think? Please write it down clearly. Where is the part of the sandbox text do you consider "personal"? Is it really that "personal"? --Fauzty (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - The text of the sandbox is an essay about date arrangement of the election. The essay is about the constitutional system in France. In France, there is one presidential election day, and another Assembly election day. Therefore there are two election days in France. Why would an essay like this deeming as a problem? Why do someone want to delete this essay, just because it is an essay about constitutional system? Why do you want to stop someone talking about a CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM of FRANCE? Why do the constitutional system of France DO NOT ALLOW to be talked about? Is the article "politics of France" disallowed in wikipedia? I really don't think so. Tell me, why this constitutional system thing is not allowed here? Please explain this to me, and explain it to everyone reading this page.--Fauzty (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - When do discussing a constitutional system deem as a suspicious behavior? When do writing an essay about a constitutional system deem as a suspicious behavior? --Fauzty (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , do not be disingenuous. Only one short section of the main sandbox is about what you are referring to, and sandbox 2 and 3 are all collections of evidences. If you intentionally deny the obvious again, you will be swiftly blocked for disruptive editing as there is no tolerance for this behaviour on the English Wikipedia. Alex Shih (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Refering to .... referring to WHAT?? Please explain. First of all, User:Alex Shih still deny the fact that THE PAGE WAS CREATING on January 2018. Denial of the pure fact is the first sign. DO WE BOTH AGREE ON that User:Alex Shih is telling a wrong information on that simple fact of the creation date of the sandbox and the written date of the sandbox text? Which is related to why User:Alex Shih want to delete it. If User:Alex Shih still insist that the page DO NOT CREATE ON January 2018, then what User:Alex Shih said is basically contrary to the fact.


 * Comment - Here, User:Alex Shih accused me of disruptive editing. The thing is... WHAT HE accused SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL. You said there is a disruptive editing. Where is it? WHERE IS IT? What are you talking about? Where is the part of the sandbox text do you consider not complying to the policy? What part of the text do you consider not complying? Uesr:Alex Shih said there is no tolerance. The thing is... no tolerance of WHAT?? Your accusation simply does not exist AT ALL. --Fauzty (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Alex Shih also deny the fact that there are a lot of academic papers (those papers written in non-English), which I already pointed out earlier. So, DO WE BOTH AGREE on the fact there are references of academic papers in the sandbox text? DO User:Alex Shih still want to claim that "there is only one short section" and refuse to mention the fact that THERE ARE academic papers? Who intentionally deny THE OBVIOUS here? Who is disingenuous here? --Fauzty (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Those quotation boxes with yellow-background-color are what I said "a lot of academic papers." Why do User:Alex Shih intenionally refuse to talking about those academic papers EVEN EXIST on the page? Why do User:Alex Shih DO NOT AGREE on the simple plain fact that there are references of those academic papers? NO TOLERANCE OF WHAT? Do we now disallow references of academic papers on wikipedia? --Fauzty (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * NO TOLERANCE OF WHAT? No tolerance of an essay about constitutional system? What are you talking about? Do we need this kind of "no tolerance"? Think about it. Why do we need this kind of "do not talk about constitutional system" attitude here? --Fauzty (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your sandbox reply is most mean NPA any admin,and least reply is a lot of academic papers only,you still continue to NPA any admin.-- MCC214  Talk with me #Contributions with me 10:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, only one short section of the main sandbox is about what you are referring to, and sandbox 2 and 3 are all collections of evidences, also, ,all sandbox (and the text in the sandbox) was created January 2018 after Fauzty was blocked on Chinese Wikipedia ,and User:Fauzty/sandbox/03 was created after Fauzty was indefinitely blocked on Chinese Wikipedia.-- MCC214  Talk with me #Contributions with me 07:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have blocked indefinitely for persistently engaging in nonsensical comments after warning. There are either language WP:CIR issues, or simply WP:NOTHERE trolling. No prejudice nor do I plan to comment any further on this rather inconsequential listing. Alex Shih (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - We don't need non-English material by indefinitely blocked users. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The wikipedian may test the page in Chinese and manages to edit in English wikipedia. I don't see how harmful with the vandalism here. --Beta Lohman (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.